1 Question

Hunting as a pastime is declining in the United States.¹ Its prolonged slump and projected decline is significant because license fees and taxes fund wildlife conservation efforts. This “user-play, user-pay” funding system–a model replicated across the globe–is jeopardizing conservation efforts as hunting declines. (Rott, n.d.) Recent legislative proposal at the federal level have attempted to diversify funding sources in response. The question for consideration is whether hunting declined from 1960 to 2020, how much agreement exists between available data sources, and which states have been impacted.

2 Background

2.1 Wildlife as Public Resource

The Public Trust Doctrine (PTD) is considered to be the cornerstone of the North American Model of Wildlife Conservation (AMWC). The doctrine posits that “wildlife is owned by no one and held in trust by governments for the present and future benefit of its citizens.”(Jacobson et al. 2010) It was first recognized by the United States Supreme Court in the seminal case Martin vs. Waddell’s Lessee, 41 U.S. 367 (1842). There, the Court held “that the public held a common right to fish in navigable and tidal waters of New Jersey because they and their underlying lands were owned by the state for the common use by the people.” (The Wildlife Society et al. 2010) Since the government is entrusted with the public’s assets, it has a responsiblity as trustee and fiduciary to safeguard them for the long term benefit of the public.(The Wildlife Society et al. 2010)

2.2 U.S. Conservation Movement

The American Conservation movement was extensive and broadly embraced by the public. The Library of Congress assembled a collection from 1850 to 1920 that, when narrowed to just Congressional and Presidential action, consisted of “140 Federal statutes and Congressional resolutions, 34 additional legislative documents, excerpts from the Congressional Globe and the Congressional Record [and] 360 Presidential proclamations.” This paper will address only a couple of the most significant legislative enactments during the U.S. Conservation Movement. These are relevant to the funding of state-level conservation efforts.

Library of Congress Evolution of the Conservation Movement 1850-1920

Many commentators date the modern U.S. Conservation movement with the establishment of the first national park. In 1872, a bill creating Yellowstone National Park was signed into law by President Ulysses S. Grant. American sportsmen were the catalyst for the U.S. conservation movement who saw the waste of wildlife and habitat as a cause for the extinction of some species and sought to preserve others.(Reiger 2000). Extinction of the passenger pigeon and extirpation of the bison.

The early 1900s and future president of the United States Teddy Rosevelt was a prominent spokesperson and advocate.(Reiger 2000)

The Organic Act of 1916 created the National Park Service and charged them to “promote and regulate . . . the national parks, monuments and reservations” consistent with their purpose “to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and wildlife therein, and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.”

Finally in 1937, the Pittman–Robertson Federal Aid in Wildlife Restoration Act became law, providing funding for state agencies to carry out conservation efforts. The Pittman–Robertson Act took over a preëxisting 11% excise tax on firearms and ammunition. Instead of going into the U.S. Treasury as it had done in the past, the money generated by the tax is instead given to the Secretary of the Interior to distribute to the states.The Secretary determines how much to give to each state based on a formula that takes into account both the area of the state and its number of licensed hunters. The Act is widely credited for restoring the populations of white-tailed deer, wild turkeys and wood ducks. Other animals like American black bears, elk, and cougars have expanded their ranges.

Due to the success of the Pittman–Robertson Act, a similar act was proposed for the protection of fish species, titled his act was titled the Federal Aid in Sports Fish Restoration Act.

2.3 Decline of Hunting

According to an article in Outdoor Life, hunting reached its peak in 1982 when nearly 17 million hunters purchased 28.3 million licenses. Additionally, persons born between the years 1946 and 1964, commonly referred to as the “Baby Boomers”, are the largest cohort of hunters and will age out of the sport in the next 15 years.(Krebs 2019) The decline was acknowledged and projected to continue in Wisconsin deer hunters through 2030. (Winkler and Warnke 2013)

In a 2012 study of Wisconsin deer hunters, researchers projected 10% decline through 2020 and an additional 18% decline from 2020 to 2030. (Winkler and Warnke 2013)

2.4 State Role in Conservation

Wildlife management is divided between the federal government and individual states. States have primary responsibility as the trustees of wildlife due to the Public Trust Doctrine, except where the Constitution provided for federal oversight.(Bean et al. 1997)

“Regulated hunting and trapping have been cornerstones of wildlife management in the United States since the advent of wildlife conservation,” write two prominent zoologists along these lines."(Braverman 2015)

2.5 Reasons for Decline

Proferred reasons for the decline include aging of hunting population, increased urbanization, change in consumer preferences . . .

2.6 Declining Fees and Taxes

“Fish and wildlife conservation funding in the U.S., at least at the state level, typically is characterized as a user-pay, user-benefit model.” (Organ et al. 2012) “From the earliest days of active management and enforcement by nascent state fish and wildlife agencies, hunters, anglers, and trappers have funded restoration and conservation initiatives.”(Organ et al. 2012) Conservation efforts are generally financed through two sources: the sale of hunting licenses from the state and the sale of firearms. Though smaller resources also add to conservation efforts. To this day, the combination of sportsmen-derived funds from hunting licenses and gun sales comprise between 60 and 90 percent of the typical state fish and wildlife agency budget.(Organ et al. 2012) Some wildlife agencies’ budgets, however, rely on even higher percentages of revenue from sportsmen. States, like Texas, fund 97% of its conservation efforts from these two sources.(Braverman 2015)

The primary reliance on hunters as the funding mechanism for conservation is frustrating for many. “Hunters are key stakeholders; their contributions and integral role in wildlife conservation continue to be important. Maintaining hunter involvement and financial support of the Institution is necessary, but not sufficient.” (Jacobson et al. 2010) Jacobson further states that “[w]e can no longer rely on our most committed constituency to carry the brunt of the financial burden and subsequently be the primary beneficiaries of our actions.”(Jacobson et al. 2010)

Conservations efforts require long term, sustainable and dependable funding sources. (Jacobson et al. 2010) User-based funding is declining and benefits a narrow group of constituents. “Other funding options states have pursued include dedicated revenues from vehicle license plates, voluntary tax check-offs, and nonprofit foundations to accept financial gifts.”(Jacobson et al. 2010) These fees have been voluntary and negligible in their impact. Missouri and Virginia were cited as having funding models that were “reliable, consistent and broad-based.” (Jacobson et al. 2010)

2.6.1 Federal Taxes

a 10 percent tax on pistols and revolvers(“26 USCS _ 4181.PDF,” n.d.);
an 11 percent tax on bows, archery equipment,and long arms;
an inflation adjusted tax on arrow shafts, standing at 48 cents per shaft in 2014;

“Congress requires each state and U.S. territory to develop a State Wildlife Action Plan - a proactive, comprehensive conservation strategy which examines species health and recommends actions to conserve wildlife and vital habitat before they become more rare and costly to protect.”(Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.: 2)

“A national survey determined that each state needs an average of 26 million in new funding annually ($1.3 billion collectively) to e!ectively implement State Wildlife Action Plans to prevent species from becoming threatened or endangered.”(Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.: 3)

“Current funding through State and Tribal Wildlife Grant Program funds only reaches a national total of 60 million on average, a shortfall of more than $1.2 billion annually.”(Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.)

2.7 Recent Federal Developments

“The bipartisan Recovering America’s Wildlife Act establishes a 21st century funding model for the proactive conservation of fish and wildlife. The bill will redirect 1.3 billion in existing revenues to state fish and wildlife agencies to implement their science-driven wildlife action plans, and an additional $97.5 million to tribal wildlife managers to conserve species on tribal.”(Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.)

States would be required to provide at least 25% in nonfederal matching funds. The source of match can be monetary or in-kind contributions originating from state or local governments or private entities such as conservation organizations, universities, businesses, private landowners, or volunteers." (Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife, n.d.: 3)

Every five years the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting and Wildlife Associated Recreation is conducted. The last survey in 2016 found that “11.5 million people 16 years and older enjoyed hunting a variety of animals within the United States. They hunted 184 million days and took 147 million trips. Hunting expenditures totaled $26.2 billion.” The survey reported that the national participation rate was four percent with significant regional variation. For example, the New England region had a two percent participation rate while the East South Central region had an eight percent participation rate.

2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation, showing regional variation in hunting participation rates.

Various explanations for the decline in hunting have been tendered. Researchers found evidence that more people opt for electronic entertainment and urban living as explainations for the decline in hunting. (Robison and Ridenour 2012a)

3 Data Sources

Data was retrieved from three sources: the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Agency, the U.S. Census Bureau and the National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife-Associated Recreation.

3.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife

States require a hunting license for those harvesting game. People who engage in hunting within the boundaries of the state they reside in require a “resident” hunting license whereas those who travel to another state require a “non-resident” license. A proxy for the popularity of the pastime is the number of hunting licenses issued by the states. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife tracks the issuance of hunting, and fishing, licenses.(US Fish & Wildlife 2020) Data is available via their website. Hunting license information is collected annually from (1) state, (2) territory and (3) insular areas license certifications. The data is available for the years 1963 - 2020, though it is in a pdf format.

3.2 IPUMS Population Data

According to their website, “the IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System (NHGIS) provides free online access to summary statistics and GIS files for U.S. censuses and other nationwide surveys from 1790 through the present.” (goray 2016). The total population data by state was needed for the years studied so that a per capita computation could be made.(Manson et al. 2020) NHGIS is one of several IPUMS data integration projects located with the Minnesota Population Center at the Institute for Social Research & Data Innovation at the University of Minnesota. (goray 2016).

3.3 National Survey FHWAR

The National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, & Wildlife-Associated Recreation (FHWAR) reports result from interviews with U.S. residents about their fishing, hunting, and wildlife watching. The survey has been taken every five years since 1955 and potentially provides a rich and insightful look into hunting trends. Its duration exceeds that of the hunting license data that began in 1963. (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016) The agency describes its survey as “one of the oldest and most comprehensive continuing recreation surveys.”(U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016) The 2016 survey–the latest available, 3,931 anglers and hunters and 3,997 wildlife watchers were interviewed. (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016) The report was explicit that the sample size was large enough for a national conclusion, but was silent on its insight at the state-level. “The 2016 Survey’s questions and methodology were similar to those used in the 2011, 2006, 2001, 1996, and 1991 Surveys. Therefore, the estimates are comparable.” (U.S. Department of the Interior et al. 2016)

4 Analysis

4.1 General

The analysis relied upon the statistical programming language known as R. (“R: The R Project for Statistical Computing” 2020) The plots were graphed with ggplot2.(Wickham 2016) The data from the sources above were combined into a single, wide dataframe and then converted into long format. The total number of observations in the dataframe was 3100 and the number of variables or columns was 6. The column names “key” and “value” are the default labels in the tidyr package. (Wickham and Henry 2020) Consistent with good data practice, each row is an observation and each column is a variable. (Wickham 2014) The top 5 rows of the dataframe are shown below for illustrative purposes.

Table 4.1: Top 5 Rows of Hunting License Dataframe
fips	state	abb	year	key	value
01	Alabama	AL	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	311,454
02	Alaska	AK	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	31,474
04	Arizona	AZ	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	105,640
05	Arkansas	AR	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	223,641
06	California	CA	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	610,882
08	Colorado	CO	1960	certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	241,301

The variables that were assembled into the dataframe are as follows:

Table 4.2: Variable Frequency by Year
	1960	1970	1980	1990	2000	2010	2020
certified_paid_hunting_license_holders	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
gross_cost_to_non-resident_hunters	0	50	50	50	50	0	50
gross_cost_to_resident_hunters	0	50	50	50	50	0	50
non-resident_hunting_licenses_tags_permits_stamps	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
per_capita_hunting_license	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
pop	50	50	50	50	50	50	50
resident_hunting_licenses_tags_permits_stamps	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
total_gross_cost_to_hunters	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
total_hunting_licenses_tags_permits_stamps	0	50	50	50	50	50	50
wr_apportionment_real_dollars	50	50	50	50	50	50	50

Not all variables were carried forward through the period of 1960 to 2020. For example, the 1960 data from USFW omitted five of the possible six variables which were filled with NA. Only observations with values were retained while NA values were omitted. This is also known as “complete cases” strategy and is a traditional approach to dealing with missing values. (Graham, Cumsille, and Shevock 2012) The District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, as well as U.S. territories, were also omitted. Thus, the “50” seen frequently in the table above represent the 50 U.S. states.

4.2 National

Diam volutpat commodo sed egestas. Ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet nibh. Ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet. Cras semper auctor neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec nam. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra. Dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at. Gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac. Ornare suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque. Egestas erat imperdiet sed euismod. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Proin libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate. In nibh mauris cursus mattis molestie a iaculis at. Enim facilisis gravida neque convallis a cras semper. Tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida. Feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus.

Diam volutpat commodo sed egestas. Ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet nibh. Ultricies mi quis hendrerit dolor. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis egestas integer eget aliquet. Cras semper auctor neque vitae tempus quam pellentesque nec nam. Morbi tincidunt ornare massa eget egestas purus viverra. Dignissim cras tincidunt lobortis feugiat vivamus at. See 4.1. Gravida rutrum quisque non tellus orci ac. Ornare suspendisse sed nisi lacus sed viverra tellus in hac. Viverra accumsan in nisl nisi scelerisque. Egestas erat imperdiet sed euismod. Netus et malesuada fames ac turpis. Proin libero nunc consequat interdum varius sit amet mattis vulputate. In nibh mauris cursus mattis molestie a iaculis at. Enim facilisis gravida neque convallis a cras semper. Tellus orci ac auctor augue mauris augue neque gravida. Feugiat vivamus at augue eget arcu dictum varius. Potenti nullam ac tortor vitae purus faucibus.

Figure shows the total number of hunting licenses or answering in the affirmative on the Survey of FHWAR. The blue line is from state submitted hunting license data. The pink and yellow series are from the Survey of FHWAR, but authors warn of using outcomes from the survey prior to 1991 because of a change in methodology

Figure 4.1: Figure shows the total number of hunting licenses or answering in the affirmative on the Survey of FHWAR. The blue line is from state submitted hunting license data. The pink and yellow series are from the Survey of FHWAR, but authors warn of using outcomes from the survey prior to 1991 because of a change in methodology

Figure shows the percentage of the population that engages in hunting. The blue line is from state submitted hunting license data. The pink and yellow series are from the Survey of FHWAR, but authors warn of using outcomes from the survey prior to 1991 because of a change in methodology

Figure 4.2: Figure shows the percentage of the population that engages in hunting. The blue line is from state submitted hunting license data. The pink and yellow series are from the Survey of FHWAR, but authors warn of using outcomes from the survey prior to 1991 because of a change in methodology

Aenean vel elit scelerisque mauris pellentesque pulvinar. Non pulvinar neque laoreet suspendisse interdum consectetur libero id faucibus. Adipiscing vitae proin sagittis nisl rhoncus mattis. Mi bibendum neque egestas congue quisque egestas diam in. Vel pretium lectus quam id leo in vitae turpis massa. Cursus in hac habitasse platea. Faucibus pulvinar elementum integer enim neque volutpat ac. Sed blandit libero volutpat sed cras ornare arcu dui. In ornare quam viverra orci. Libero justo laoreet sit amet cursus sit amet. See 4.3.

Figure shows that the declining percentage of hunters is due to rising population while hunting license issuance has remained the same.

Figure 4.3: Figure shows that the declining percentage of hunters is due to rising population while hunting license issuance has remained the same.

Figure 4.4: Gross cost per hunter and per person compared to inflation. Notice the y-axis showing that the per person cost is less than $3.00

(#tab:table_00)Top 10 States for Hunting
rank	state	licenses/1000
1	South Dakota	239
2	Wyoming	224
3	Montana	209
4	North Dakota	166
5	Idaho	162
6	Oklahoma	140
7	Alaska	120
8	West Virginia	117
9	Wisconsin	117
10	Maine	115

(#tab:table_00)Bottom 10 States for Hunting
rank	state	licenses/1000
41	Nevada	22
42	Maryland	19
43	Delaware	16
44	Connecticut	10
45	Florida	9
46	Massachusetts	8
47	New Jersey	8
48	California	7
49	Hawaii	7
50	Rhode Island	7

Table 4.3: Top 10 States %Change in Hunters
rank	state	percent_change
1	Oklahoma	54.4%
2	North Dakota	42.3%
3	Alabama	7.5%
4	Mississippi	6.1%
5	Georgia	-0.4%
6	West Virginia	-1.9%
7	Louisiana	-3%
8	Missouri	-8.7%
9	South Dakota	-9.1%
10	Hawaii	-12.7%

Table 4.3: Bottom 10 States %Change in Hunters
rank	state	percent_change
41	Massachusetts	-65.7%
42	Virginia	-70.5%
43	Delaware	-71.3%
44	Indiana	-71.7%
45	New Jersey	-72%
46	New Hampshire	-73.1%
47	Florida	-73.2%
48	Washington	-76.9%
49	California	-83%
50	Nevada	-84%

4.3 Forecast

4.4 Further Research

2014 Allocation of gun revenue plotted compared to hunter license data. A floor and ceiling is set within the allocation forumula as well as territorial size.

5 Conclusions

Hunting license issuance among the states for the 1960 to 2020 years declined. This conclusion matches other studies and other datasets. Possible explanations in the decline in hunting include the aging of the U.S. population, the continued migration from rural to urban settings.(Mehmood, Zhang, and Armstrong 2003a)Hunting as a pastime remains grim, imperiling state conservation efforts. Wildlife and habitat conservation efforts will depend on the US moving away from a “pay-to-play” model and toward more sustainable funding streams like that proposed in the Act.

6 Bibliography

“26 USCS _ 4161.PDF.” n.d.

“26 USCS _ 4181.PDF.” n.d.

Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife. n.d. “About Us - Alliance for America’s Fish & Wildlife.” http://ournatureusa.com/about-us/.

Association of Fish & Wildlife Agencies. n.d. “American System of Conservation Funding.” https://www.fishwildlife.org/afwa-informs/resources/american-system-conservation-funding.

———. n.d. “Annual Report 2019.”

Bean, Michael J., Melanie J. Rowland, Environmental Defense Fund, and World Wildlife Fund (U.S.). 1997. The Evolution of National Wildlife Law. Greenwood Publishing Group.

Bolen, Eric G., and William L. Robinson. 2002. Wildlife Ecology and Management. Fifth. Pearson.

Braverman, Irus. 2015. “Conservation and Hunting: Till Death Do They Part? A Legal Ethnography of Deer Management.” Journal of Land Use & Environmental Law 30 (2): 57.

Brown, Peter A. 2019. “Examining the Tragedy of the Commons Dilemma: Looking at the New Hampshire Fishing Industry.” Honors Theses and Capstones, University of New Hampshire.

Dizard, Jan E. 1994. Going Wild: Hunting, Animal Rights, and the Contested Meaning of Nature. Amherst: University of Massachusetts Press.

Enck, Jody W., Bryan L. Swift, and Daniel J. Decker. 1993. “Reasons for Decline in Duck Hunting: Insights from New York.” Wildlife Society Bulletin (1973-2006) 21 (1). [Wiley, Wildlife Society]: 10–21.

Floyd, Myron F., and Injae Lee. 2002. “Who Buys Fishing and Hunting Licenses in Texas? Results from a Statewide Household Survey.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 7 (2). Routledge: 91–106. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200290089364.

goray. 2016. “About IPUMS NHGIS.” Text. IPUMS NHGIS. https://www.nhgis.org/about.

Graham, John W., Patricio E. Cumsille, and Allison E. Shevock. 2012. “Methods for Handling Missing Data.” In Handbook of Psychology, Second Edition. American Cancer Society. https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118133880.hop202004.

Gude, Justin A., Julie A. Cunningham, Jeffrey T. Herbert, and Thomas Baumeister. 2012. “Deer and Elk Hunter Recruitment, Retention, and Participation Trends in Montana.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 76 (3). [Wiley, Wildlife Society]: 471–79.

Heberlein, Thomas A. 2008. “Hunter Declines in US and Europe: Causes, Concerns, and Proposed Research.”

Heberlein, Thomas A., and Elizabeth Thomson. 1996. “Changes in U.S. Hunting Participation, 198090.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 1 (1). Routledge: 85–86. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209609359055.

———. 1997. “The Effects of Hunter-Education Requirements on Hunting Participation and Recruitment in the United States.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 2 (1). Routledge: 19–31. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209709359084.

Heffelfinger, James R., Valerius Geist, and William Wishart. 2013. “The Role of Hunting in North American Wildlife Conservation.” International Journal of Environmental Studies 70 (3). Routledge: 399–413. https://doi.org/10.1080/00207233.2013.800383.

Hornaday, William T. (William Temple). 2006. The Extermination of the American Bison. Project Gutenberg.

Jacobson, Cynthia, John Organ, Gordon Batcheller, and Len Carpenter. 2010. “A Conservation Institution for the 21st Century: Implications for State Wildlife Agencies.” The Journal of Wildlife Management 74 (December): 203–9. https://doi.org/10.2193/2008-485.

Krebs, Natalie. 2019. “Why We Suck at Recruiting New Hunters, Why It Matters, and How You Can Fix It.” Outdoor LIfe, October.

Li, Chieh-Lu, Harry C. Zinn, Susan C. Barro, and Michael J. Manfredo. 2003. “A Cross-Regional Comparison of Recreation Patterns of Older Hunters.” Leisure Sciences 25 (1). Routledge: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01490400306559.

Manning, Robert E. n.d. Project MUSE - Studies in Outdoor Recreation. 3rd ed. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Manson, Steven, Jonathan Schroeder, David Van Riper, Tracy Kugler, and Steven Ruggles. 2020. “IPUMS National Historical Geographic Information System: Version 15.0 [Dataset].” Minneapolis, MN: IPUMS.

McCormick, Lacey. 2018. “One-Third of American Wildlife at Increased Risk of Extinction.” National Wildlife Federation. https://www.nwf.org/Home/Latest-News/Press-Releases/2018/03-29-18-Wildlife-Crisis-Report.

Mehmood, Sayeed, Daowei Zhang, and James Armstrong. 2003a. “Factors Associated with Declining Hunting License Sales in Alabama.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8 (4). Routledge: 243–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/716100423.

———. 2003b. “Factors Associated with Declining Hunting License Sales in Alabama.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 8 (4). Routledge: 243–62. https://doi.org/10.1080/716100423.

Organ, J.F., Valerius Geist, Shane P. Mahoney, Steven Williams, Paul R. Krausman, Gordon R. Batcheller, Thomas A. Decker, et al. 2012. “The Wildlife Society Technical Review 12-04.” The Wildlife Society: Bethesda.

“Organic Act.” 1912.

Poudyal, Neelam, Seong Hoon Cho, and J. M. Bowker. 2008a. “Demand for Resident Hunting in the Southeastern United States.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13 (3). Routledge: 158–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200801922965.

———. 2008b. “Demand for Resident Hunting in the Southeastern United States.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 13 (3). Routledge: 158–74. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871200801922965.

Reiger, John F. 2000. American Sportsmen and the Origins of Conservation, 3rd Ed. 3rd Revised and Expanded ed. edition. Corvallis: Oregon State University Press.

Robison, Kristopher K., and Daniel Ridenour. 2012a. “Whither the Love of Hunting? Explaining the Decline of a Major Form of Rural Recreation as a Consequence of the Rise of Virtual Entertainment and Urbanism.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17 (6). Routledge: 418–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.680174.

———. 2012b. “Whither the Love of Hunting? Explaining the Decline of a Major Form of Rural Recreation as a Consequence of the Rise of Virtual Entertainment and Urbanism.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 17 (6). Routledge: 418–36. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2012.680174.

Rott, Nathan. n.d. “Decline in Hunters Threatens How U.S. Pays for Conservation.” NPR.org. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/20/593001800/decline-in-hunters-threatens-how-u-s-pays-for-conservation.

“R: The R Project for Statistical Computing.” 2020. Vienna Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.

Rubio-Cisneros, Nadia T., Octavio Aburto-Oropeza, Jason Murray, Charlotte E. Gonzalez-Abraham, Jeremy Jackson, and Exequiel Ezcurra. 2014. “Transnational Ecosystem Services: The Potential of Habitat Conservation for Waterfowl Through Recreational Hunting Activities.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 19 (1). Routledge: 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2013.819536.

Scrogin, David O., and Robert P. Berrens. 1999. “Determinants of Lottery Participation for Big Game Hunting Privileges: Resident Versus Nonresident Elk Hunters in New Mexico.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4 (1). Routledge: 36–49. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209909359143.

Sellers, Frances Stead. 2020. “Hunting Is ‘Slowly Dying Off,’ and That Has Created a Crisis for the Nation’s Many Endangered Species.” Washington Post, February.

Tack, Jennifer L. Price, Conor P. McGowan, Stephen S. Ditchkoff, Wayde C. Morse, and Orin J. Robinson. 2018. “Managing the Vanishing North American Hunter: A Novel Framework to Address Declines in Hunters and Hunter-Generated Conservation Funds.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 23 (6). Routledge: 515–32. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1499155.

Teisl, Dr Mario F., Dr Kevin J. Boyle, and Richard E. Record Jr. 1999. “License-Sales Revenues: Understanding Angler and Hunter Reactions to Changes in License Prices.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 4 (4). Routledge: 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209909359162.

The Wildlife Society, Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, Western Association of Fish and Wildlife Agencies, and Wildlife Management Institute. 2010. “The Public Trust Doctrine.” Wildlife Society: Maryland.

“[USC02] 31 USC 718: Availability of Draft Reports.” 1982.

US Census Bureau. 1991. “1991 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1993/demo/fhw-91-nat.html.

———. 1996. “1996 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/1997/demo/fhw-96-nat.html.

———. 2001. “2001 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2002/demo/fhw-01-nat.html.

———. 2006. “2006 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2006/demo/fhw-06-nat.html.

———. 2011. “2011 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2014/demo/fhw-11-nat.html.

———. 2016. “2016 FHWAR National and State Reports.” The United States Census Bureau. https://www.census.gov/library/publications/2018/demo/fhw-16-nat.html.

U.S. Department of the Interior, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, U.S. Department of Commerce, and U.S. Census Bureau. 2016. “2016 National Survey of Fishing, Hunting, and Wildlife-Associated Recreation.”

US Fish & Wildlife. 2020. “US Fish and Wildlife Service National Hunting License [Dataset].” Washington, D.C.: US Fish & Wildlife.

“Vermont Statutes Title 10. Conservation and Development, 4256.” n.d. Findlaw. https://codes.findlaw.com/vt/title-10-conservation-and-development/vt-st-tit-10-sect-4256.html.

Wickham, Hadley. 2014. “Tidy Data.” Journal of Statistical Software 59 (1): 1–23. https://doi.org/10.18637/jss.v059.i10.

———. 2016. “Ggplot2: Elegant Graphics for Data Analysis.”

Wickham, Hadley, and Lionel Henry. 2020. “Tidyr: Tidy Messy Data.”

Winkler, Richelle, and Keith Warnke. 2013. “The Future of Hunting: An Age-Period-Cohort Analysis of Deer Hunter Decline.” Population and Environment 34 (4): 460–80. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11111-012-0172-6.

Zhang, Xiaohan, and Craig A. Miller. 2019. “Associations Between Socioeconomic Status and Hunting License Sales Among Census Tracts in Cook County, Illinois.” Human Dimensions of Wildlife 24 (2). Routledge: 148–58. https://doi.org/10.1080/10871209.2018.1558466.

n.d.

7 Appendix

7.1 Annual Wildlife Restoration Apportionment

7.2 Directory of Fish & Wildlife Associations

Directory of state F&W offices State and Territorial Fish and Wildlife Offices

7.3 Sortable Table with html widgets

The views, analysis and conclusions presented within this paper represent the author’s alone and not of any other person, organization or government entity. While I have made every reasonable effort to ensure that the information in this article was correct, it will nonetheless contain errors, inaccuracies and inconsistencies. It is a working paper subject to revision without notice as additional information becomes available. Any liability is disclaimd as to any party for any loss, damage, or disruption caused by errors or omissions, whether such errors or omissions result from negligence, accident, or any other cause. The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.↩

Hunting As United States Pastime 1960 to 2020: Implications for Conservation

Robert Wiederstein

11/14/2020